Taking Liberties: The War on Terror and the Erosion of American Democracy (46 page)

23
.  City of West Covina v. Perkins, 525 U.S. 234, 240 (1999).

24
.  18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(d) provides that within ninety days after termination of surveillance, the court will disclose to the target of the wiretap and other parties to intercepted communications an inventory describing the surveillance. The government may seek to delay notification under 18 U.S.C. § 1303a.

25
.  Patriot Act § 212 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3103a(b) & (c)).

26
.  
See id.

27
.  A 2009 Administrative Office Report shows that during fiscal year 2008, only three of 763 sneak and peek warrants were issued in terrorism investigations,
see
DIR. OF THE ADMIN. OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS, REPORT ON APPLICATIONS FOR DELAYED-NOTICE SEARCH WARRANTS AND EXTENSIONS
(2009),
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/SneakAndPeakReport.pdf
.

28
.  City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000).

29
.  
Mayfield,
504 F. Supp. 2d at 1037.

30
.  The FISA court is to accept the government’s certifications on these issues unless they are found “clearly erroneous,” 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804(a)(6)(A)–(E) & 1805(a) (4) (eavesdropping);
id.
at §§ 1823(a)(6)(A)–(E) & 1824(a)(4) (physical searches).

31
.  
Mayfield
, 504 F. Supp. 2d at 1034.

32
.  FISA delegates to the Attorney General the responsibility for developing guidelines for retention and dissemination of information obtained by electronic surveillance,
see
50 U.S.C. § 1801(h).

33
.  
Mayfield,
504 F. Supp. 2d at 1034.

34
.  
Mayfield,
599 F.3d 964, 972 (9th Cir. 2006),
cert. denied,
__U.S.__, 131 S. Ct. 503 (2010).

35
.  In re All Matters Submitted, 218 F. Supp. 2d 611 (FISC 2002),
rev’d sub nom.
In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717 (FISA Ct. Rev. 2002).

36
.  Ann Beeson,
On the Home Front: A Lawyer’s Struggle to Defend Rights After 9/11
,
in
THE WAR ON OUR FREEDOMS
295 (Richard C. Leone & Greg Anrig, Jr. eds., New York: Century Foundation 2003).

37
.  Ruger,
supra
note 19, at 255.

38
.  In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 746 (FISA Ct. Rev. 2002).

39
.  
Id.

40
.  ACLU v. United States, 538 U.S. 920 (2003).

41
.  50 U.S.C. §§ 1806(c)–(d), 1825(d)–(e).

42
.  
See
United States v. Hassan Abu-Jihaad, 531 F. Supp. 2d 299, 310 (D. Ct. 2008).

43
.  
Id
. at 305 n.6.

44
.  Post 9/11 cases ruling against Fourth Amendment claims: City of Ontario v. Quon,__U.S.__, 130 S. Ct. 2619 (2010); Arizona v. Johnson,__U.S.__, 129 S. Ct. 781 (2009); Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009); Michigan v. Fisher,__U.S.__, 130 S. Ct. 546 (2009); Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009); Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008); Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007); Los Angeles County v. Rettele, 550 U.S. 609 (2007); Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007); Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006); Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006); Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006); United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006); Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005); Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005); Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004); Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., 542 U.S. 177 (2004); Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 (2004); United States v. Flores Montano, 541 U.S. 149 (2004); Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004); Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003); United States v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31 (2003); Bd. of Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 92 v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002); United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002); United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002); United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001). Cases ruling in favor of Fourth Amendment claims: Safford Unified School Dist. v. Redding,__U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 2633 (2009); Arizona v. Gant,__U.S.__, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009); Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007); Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006); Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004).

45
.  Transcript of Oral Argument at 32, United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (No. 00–1519).

46
.  
Mayfield,
504 F. Supp. 2d at 1042.

47
.  Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967).

48
.  Lopez v. United States, 373 U.S. 427, 466 (1963) (Brennan, J., dissenting).

49
.  Matthew R. Hall,
Constitutional Regulation of National Security Investigation: Minimizing the Use of Unrelated Evidence,
41
WAKE FOREST L. REV.
61 (2006) (proposing a judicially created use restriction); Seth Kreimer,
Watching the Watchers:
7
U. PA. J. CONST.
L. 133, 181 (2004).

Chapter 7

1
.  United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 58 (1953) (Douglas, J., concurring).

2
.  
Overview,
LIBR. CO. OF PHILADELPHIA,
http://www.librarycompany.org/about/index.htm
.

3
.  
History of the Franklin Public Library,
TOWN OF FRANKLIN, MASS
.,
http://www.town.franklin.ma.us/Pages/FranklinMA_Library/libraryhistory
.

4
.  
Jefferson’s Library,
LIBR. OF CONG.,
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefflib.html
.

5
.  
Resolution on the USA Patriot Act and Related Measures That Infringe on the Rights of Library Users,
AM. LIBR. ASS’N,
http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=ifresolutions&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=11891
.

6
.  American Library Association, Policy 53.4, adopted Feb. 2, 1973,
http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/rts/godort/godortresolutions/19880713153.cfm
.

7
.  50 U.S.C. § 1861(a)(1).

8
.  Nancy Kranich,
The Impact of the USA PATRIOT Act on Free Expression,
FREE EXPRESSION POL’Y PROJECT
(May 5, 2003),
http://www.fepproject.org/commentaries/patriotact.html
.

9
.  Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft, Proven Tactics in the Fight Against Crime, Address before the Nat’l Restaurant Ass’n (Sept. 15, 2003),
http://www.justice.gov/archive/ag/speeches/2003/091503nationalrestaurant.htm
.

10
.  Michele Orecklin, Jeffrey Ressner, & David Thigpen,
Civil Liberties: Checking What You Check Out,
TIME,
May 12, 2003,
http://www.time.com/time/maga-zine/article/0,9171,1004797,00.html
.

11
.  Eric Lichtblau,
U.S. Says It Has Not Used New Library Records Law,
N.Y. TIMES,
Sept. 19, 2003,
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/us/us-says-it-has-not-used-new-library-records-law.html
.

12
.  Robert D. McFadden,
F.B.I. in New York Asks Librarians’ Aid in Reporting on Spies,
N.Y. TIMES,
Sept. 18, 1987,
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE7D6163FF93BA2575AC0A961948260&scp=3&sq=fbi%20spies%20 librarys&st=cse
.

13
.  
See
Sidney Koenigsburg,
Library Records Open to Parental Scrutiny: A New Set of Internet Access Controls for Minors?
29
COLUM. J.L.
&
ARTS
361, 364 (2006), and Scott Seaman & Ann Miller,
State Statutes on Confidentiality of Library Circulation Records
13(2)
LIBR.
&
ARCHIVAL SEC.
33, 33 (1996). The other two states, Hawaii and Kentucky, have Attorney General opinions stating that library records deserve more protection than other business records,
see State Privacy Laws Regarding Library Records,
AM. LIBR. ASS’N
,
http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/ifgroups/stateifcchairs/stateifcinaction/stateprivacy.cfm
.

14
.  Connecticut law, for example, provides: “Reports by libraries. Confidentiality of records. (b)(1) … records maintained by libraries that can be used to identify any library user, or link any user to a library transaction, regardless of format, shall be kept confidential, except that the records may be disclosed to officers, employees and agents of the library, as necessary for operation of the library. (2) Information contained in such records shall not be released to any third party, except (A) pursuant to a court order, or (B) with the written permission of the library user whose personal information is contained in the records.” Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 11–25 (2004).

15
.  U.S. Const. art. VI.

16
.  
See
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).

17
.  
See
Beryl A. Howell,
Seven Weeks: The Making of the USA PATRIOT ACT,
72
GEO. WASH. L. REV.
1145, 1171 (2004).

18
.  H.R. 1157, 108th Cong. (2003).

19
.  H.R. 2862, 109th Cong., 151 Cong. Rec. H4494, 4534–43, 4551 (2005) (amendment 280, unenacted).

20
.  
See, e.g.
, Family Educational and Privacy Rights Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (2006) (codified as subsequently amended by Patriot Act § 507).

21
.  Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–191 §§ 261–64, 10 Stat. 1936, 2021–34 (1996) (codified as subsequently amended in scattered sections of 18, 26, 29 & 42 U.S.C.);
see
45 C.F.R. §§ 160 & 164 (2002) (codified as amended).

22
.  Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99–508, 100 Stat. 1848 (1986) (codified as subsequently amended in scattered sections of 18 U.S.C.).

23
.  
Statement of Homam Albaroudi, Member, Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor,
ACLU (July 30, 2003),
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/statement-homam-albaroudi-member-muslim-community-association-ann-arbor
.

24
.  The original gag order read: “No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.” Patriot Act § 215 (codified as subsequently amended at 50 U.S.C. § 1861(d)).

25
.  Declaration of Mary Lieberman, Muslim Cmty. Ass’n of Ann Arbor v. Ashcroft, No. 03–72913 (E.D. Mich., Nov. 3, 2003),
http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/affidavit_lieberman.pdf
.

26
.  Declaration of John Doe, Muslim Cmty. Ass’n of Ann Arbor v. Ashcroft, No. 03–72913 (E.D. Mich., Nov. 3, 2003),
http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/affidavit_doe.pdf
.

27
.  
See
David Pozen,
The Mosaic Theory, National Security, and the Freedom of Information Act,
115
YALE L.J.
628 (2005) (describing and critiquing the mosaic theory).

28
.  
See
Jameel Jaffer,
The Mosaic Theory,
SOCIAL RESEARCH
(Sept. 22, 2010) (discussing the difference between the mosaic theory as a statement of fact as opposed to an argument justifying secrecy). For examples of two very different judicial reactions to the government’s assertion of this doctrine to defend secrecy practices,
compare
Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 681, 709–10 (6th Cir. 2002) (“[T]here seems to be no limit to the Government’s [mosaic] argument…. The government could operate in virtual secrecy in all matters dealing, even remotely, with ‘national security,’ resulting in a wholesale suspension of First Amendment rights”)
with
Center for Nat’l Sec. Stud. v. Dep’t of Justice, 331 F.3d 918, 928 (D.C. Cir. 2003),
cert. denied,
540 U.S. 1104 (2004) (“We … reject any attempt to artificially limit the long-recognized deference to the executive on national security issues…. What may seem trivial to the uninformed, may appear of great moment to one who has a broad view of the scene and may put the questioned item of information in its proper context”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

29
.  ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F. Supp. 2d 20, 34 (D.D.C. 2003).

30
.  ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 321 F. Supp. 2d 24, 32–33 (D.D.C. 2004).

31
.  
Oversight of the USA Patriot Act: Hearings Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary,
109th Cong. 6 (2005) (statement of Alberto R. Gonzales, Att’y Gen. of the United States),
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/109hrg/24293.pdf
;
see also
U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, FACT SHEET: USA PATRIOT ACT PROVISIONS SET FOR REAUTHORIZATION
(2005),
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2005/04/doj040505b.html
.

32
.  Muslim Cmty. Ass’n v. Ashcroft, 459 F. Supp. 2d 592 (E.D. Mich. 2006). A list of amicus curiae briefs can be found at:
PATRIOT Act Fears Are Stifling Free Speech, ACLU Says in Challenge to Law,
ACLU,
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/patri-ot-act-fears-are-stifling-free-speech-aclu-says-challenge-law
.

33
.  
See
Doe v. Ashcroft, 334 F. Supp. 2d 471, 494 n.118 (S.D.N.Y. 2004),
vacated sub nom.
Doe v. Gonzales 449 F. 3d 415 (2d Cir. 2006).

34
.  United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976).

35
.  Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).

36
.  12 U.S.C. §§ 3401–22 (codified as amended).

37
.  H.R. Rep. No. 95–1383, at 28 (1978).

38
.  Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986,
supra
note 22, § 201 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2703(c)(1)(B).